The Department of Justice a week ago tossed straight down the gauntlet in new york, filing case alleging that their state violated federal anti-discrimination rules by limiting trans people’ access to restrooms in local government buildings. Among those federal regulations, Title VII associated with 1964 Civil Rights Act, forbids employment discrimination due to race, color, nationwide beginning, faith – and intercourse. DOJ claims that vermont has involved with intercourse discrimination, because, in DOJ’s view, “sex” includes “gender identity.”
The government’s interpretation of this word — “sex” — has broadened somewhat since Title VII’s passage. Certainly, the Equal Employment chance Commission, the federal agency developed by Title VII and vested with primary enforcement authority for the statute, initially comprehended “because of intercourse” to mean a maximum of overt drawbacks to feamales in benefit of males, and revealed no curiosity about enforcing the supply at all. It’s taken years when it comes to appropriate knowledge of intercourse to reach at where it really is today, plus it’s a development that maps, and mirrors, our social knowledge of intercourse much more than just biology. Continue reading Op-Ed: It is illegal to discriminate ‘because of sex.’ But just what does that truly mean?